Sarah Burris
@sarahburris.bsky.social
11K followers 1.5K following 6.3K posts
Writer @alternet.org some at RawStory ex: @salon *opinions might be jokes* Threads: @sarahburris Spoutable: @sarahburris Email: sarah at alternet.org Oklahomie in Washington, D.C. Animal lover Recovering social media expert
![' The dissent argues that sections 1373(a) and (b) do not displace laws restricting information sharing with DHS because "[w]hen a law imposes an express restriction on disclosure, it is that law—not an 'entity, 'offi- cial, 'person,' or 'agency'-that is doing the 'prohibit[ing]'
or re- strict[ing]." Post, at 7 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). But the distinction the dissent draws between laws and those tasked with enforcing them is il- lusory. Sections 1373(a) and (b) prohibit any "entity," "official," "person," or "agency" from "prohibit [ing]" or "in any way restrictling]" the request for or receipt of information regarding immigration status. (Emphasis added.) Those prohibitions necessarily include invoking a law to deny a
request for or transfer of such information.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f4d76fjna5nxqsy2fu6cgmp3/bafkreie7wl3m4m7en7raadoqp3lrg5uoth65o6jewe6jvh7bitfoedn6im)
![As we observed recently in Catholic Charities, which enjoined a Michigan conversion therapy ban similar to the one at issue in Chiles, no “viewpoint-discriminatory restriction” on speech has ever survived strict scrutiny. 162 F.4th at 696. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that Tennessee has no compelling “interest in shielding its citizens from information about activities outside [its] borders.” Bigelow, 421 U.S. at 827–28; see also Katt v. Dykhouse, 983 F.2d 690, 695 (6th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, even crediting Tennessee’s passing suggestion that it has a compelling interest in protecting “the parental right to direct medical treatment,” the Recruitment Provision is not narrowly tailored to that interest. Tennessee’s law is “wildly underinclusive when judged against [this] asserted justification,” Brown, 564 U.S. at 802, because it criminalizes speech that encourages a minor to get an abortion yet is silent on speech encouraging a minor to carry a pregnancy to term with or without parental involvement. Thus, the Recruitment Provision cannot survive strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Welty and Behn.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreidtwonhkiropl4utedwirqonvufxabtzwwvmr53xoxvn6bq2yirmi)
